I was a fan of the [2009 Star Trek], so I was pleased when I got the offer. But I know the second one will become far-bigger scale, so I felt terror instantly. He is very ruthless…He is not a clearly good or evil character. He is a villain but the actions he takes has intent and reason. He is a complicated character not to be judged by white-or-black, or good-or-evil. But this is the appeal of J.J.’s works and I felt challenge as an actor."

Benedict Cumberbatch said this in Japan today where I guess the whole cast was giving interviews or something. Still vague, but it's something.

The link is from a site we can't put up here it's usually a terrible site but lol, this I do know happened today.

So, I watched Star Trek again and it got me think of how much I liked not knowing much about it before I first saw it outside of the alternate timeline plot.

I haven't been following this film as much I did the first one, but I noticed how most of the news seems to just be speculation of who certain characters are/if they're from the old show. And I can only think of one or two spy pics. This one seems pretty under wraps to me.

I haven't been following this film as much I did the first one, but I noticed how most of the news seems to just be speculation of who certain characters are/if they're from the old show. And I can only think of one or two spy pics. This one seems pretty under wraps to me.

Yeah, they've been doing a really good job at not letting any important stuff leak. I commend them for that.

Even more so than TDKR. As much as Nolan was said to have kept things under wraps, it was pretty easy to guess the general outline of where things would go based on pics and what people said in interviews.

The thing that bothers me about the Garth theory is that in the original continuity (which I know is out the window now) Garth's actions were the result of mental illness. Unless they just make him a generic bad guy it might be difficult to portray that part of his character. If they leave the mental illness out then they might as well have created a whole new character to do with what they wanted. He was also much older than Kirk.

Though what really bugged me in Star Trek is that the Earth has like... no defenses at all (well they do mention defense codes for something...). Apparently six starships guard the entire planet.

Which... I guess would be alright if Earth was some minor world, but it ain't. It's Earth. And it's the capital of the Federation.

You'd think there would be hundreds of starships around Earth at all times.

Compare it to, let's say Halo, Mass Effect, or any other sci fi material, where Earth usually has a couple of fleets on standby just waiting for someone to invade Earth.

I hope they remedy that.

Not really. The Federation was not purely about war. At times yes but it's mainly about the Prime Directive. In most the films/shows there were defenses, but you have to understand, when you defend something you don't start with just the capital. Example Washington D.C. is not the only thing protected, there is not tanks lined up around it alone, all of the U.S. is protected, even somewhat pushing itself into other countries.

And if you remember, all of the main fleet went to Vulcan, and were destroyed. Most seem to forget that HUGE aspect of the film. There is protection, but the Federation is huge, and like most countries it protects the boarders, which in turn protects the center.

Not really. The Federation was not purely about war. At times yes but it's mainly about the Prime Directive. In most the films/shows there were defenses, but you have to understand, when you defend something you don't start with just the capital. Example Washington D.C. is not the only thing protected, there is not tanks lined up around it alone, all of the U.S. is protected, even somewhat pushing itself into other countries.

And if you remember, all of the main fleet went to Vulcan, and were destroyed. Most seem to forget that HUGE aspect of the film. There is protection, but the Federation is huge, and like most countries it protects the boarders, which in turn protects the center.

No, but there is a huge naval base outside DC, and the US Air Force have jets patrolling the skies, and can have an entire squadron up there in a matter of minutes. Plus, we're talking about a planet...

It seems rather farfetched to think that both Vulcan and Earth have to rely on a half dozen ships, because the main fleet is away. A half dozen ships with inexperienced crew no less.

Also, Vulcan apparently doesn't have any defenses. But I assume (charitably) that the Vulcans were caught off guard, hence they didn't have time to fight back. Giving the writers a break there.

Going by Enterprise, the Vulcans should have some very powerful warships.

Going by the fact that the Klingons easily captured the Narada, and the fact that the Narada easily wiped out a good chunk of the Federation fleet... not sure how they regularly handle Klingons.

Just give me a big fleet in the next movie, and I'll keep it to myself.

Sorry then you don't get what Trek is about. Gene would always say, when people would ask more questions about "war" in Trek, was that (especially when he did TNG) that we as humans are no longer a war paranoid species. We no longer have our primary concern about that. That is not what the Federation is about. Minimal defense is always what it has been. In TNG when the Borg were advancing in "The Best of Both Worlds" and leading up to that, the Federation admitted they did not have the force to fight a war. And in DS9 it took them forever to get a force together, and really relied on Romulans and Kliongons to defeat the Dominion as well.

The Federation up to the Dominon war was not purely about war and defenses. Yes the Klingon War escalated (quite a while after TOS but before TNG).

It's not about Far Fetched. Again you have to think in "perspective" Those fleets of ships off the coast of DC realitive to an almost entire quadrant of our Galaxy. Think billions of stars. The Federation does not rely on Earth, they are not an egocentric people anymore that's not Trek. It is headquartered there but if it was destroyed it could easily be moved. Vulcans as well are not about war, they are about suppressing all violence. They had no need for it anymore.

They had a massive fleet near by, it got demolished by Nero. End of story. The rest of the fleet is spread through out the Galaxy they don't go in swarms, their mission as ships are to explore new places, and spread the Prime Directive.

In Trek lore and even in the film itself, it makes complete sense. It's not unrealistic, it's Trek. We are a culture that is not a primarily war paranoid race anymore. It's not our thought process. We evolve in this future. We have defenses the film showed it, but in perspective having the fleet around Earth would be like every single bit of our military in the north east of America alone. It makes no sense.

Minimal defense is bad, or rather lazy writing. Granted, I'm not entirely blaming the last movie. Wasn't it in Generations where somehow the ship they were on was the only one in range, even though they were still in the Solar System. That was even lazier.

Though possibly here they did it to save money. Though it is something of a plot hole anyway. Like how long did it take the Enterprise to get to Vulcan? They made it seem like an hour tops.

You call it Trek lore, I see it as lazy writing / or cost saving measures, at best.

Six ships is not a massive fleet by any standards (not even a carrier).

What makes more sense, keeping a good chunk of your fleet around your most important planets, or sending them off to do something in the Laurentian system the leaving yourself open to an attack? Let's ask the Vulcans. Oh wait, they're all dead.

I just don't think we are on the same page but whatever. This massive fleet that they have, is an exploratory fleet. Not a war fleet. At times they have a massed one, but usually no.

Again it would be like Iraq and us fighting a War, and us deciding to put the majority of our defenses around Washington DC. No you have the majority of your strongest defenses near the enemy boarder, or at least farther out. You don't want war coming to you so you put defenses far out. In a massive Galaxy, and Vulcan is a lot closer then the boarders of the Federation. You are not going to have the entire fleet that is spread through out the galaxy, and more concerned about Klingon Boarders and so forth then just coincidentally one single ship comes through a storm and disappears then comes back.

As for your six ship arguments, that's how many they showed go away. I don't remember them saying how many ships were destroyed at Vulcan.

However you call it lazy writing all you want. It's not. It is Trek lore of how the Federation thinks and what it is. You are thinking in today's standards. We are all in this world war feared war drenched people. We spend more money on military then most things. Because we are afraid. In Trek. In the Future it is all about how we evolved past that, we are no longer focused on that mentality. That is the core philosophy of what Trek is about, and any Trek fan/writer/director whoever would tell you the exact same thing.

And even with their minimal defenses around the galaxy, logistically it just would not have worked, they could not get all the fleets attentions who were weeks away (yes it takes a long time even in high warp to go from the edge of the federation to Earth). So even if they were like HELP US. It would take a lot of the ships a while to get there.

EDIT: Now will they have learned in this film? Yes they will. They will have more defenses. Because up till now it was very peaceful. And just like the Borg/Dominion affairs in Trek lore when push came to shove they had to defend their people and create a big fleet made for war. In the end it always does become survival of the fittest. But only when push comes to shove. The Federation's philosophy is only go to extreme when you absolutely have to. That was embodied better then anyone through Captain Picard.

The odd thing about Star Trek 1 is I actually liked it. My sister a Star Trek fan hated it. I thought the New Spock was well done and really Pine seems funner then Shatner as captain. I do think JJ should have made 2 films so we can get more films then 1 every 4 years it seems like.

Like anything some fans will not like it. I actually really did like it and thought they captured a lot of the essentials while enticing a new generation and also pleasing us older fans by making TOS remain cannon alongside this. I think the first one had a lot to balance, introducing these characters to everyone showing their dynamics (the most important part) and additionally having a plot like "Yesterday's Enterprise" where it allowed for a new universe to be created alongside TOS.

Now it did have some small flaws. But this one was more adventurous in spirit, which some of the TOS was (for its day) with Kirk. Kirk was more of the adventurer and somewhat swashbuckling type. While Picard was more of the thinking man of a Captain.

I felt it did a great job and I hope they just improve from there.

Honestly in the end what I really want is a trilogy of this movie series, but go back and make a new TV series. That is what I really want.

While humanity isnt war mongerers or paranoid they are going against a warrior culture in the Klingons and Romulans. Two antagonistic races with stealth technology. It would make sense for the Federation to have some defensive fleets

While humanity isnt war mongerers or paranoid they are going against a warrior culture in the Klingons and Romulans. Two antagonistic races with stealth technology. It would make sense for the Federation to have some defensive fleets

And they do, mainly near the boarders of them. However even in the series it was more about dealing with it diplomatically, The full on war was more off screen as it escalated. And shown more by Star Trek VI (great film).

So yes there are defenses. And they were destroyed by Nero at Vulcan. But the majority of their focus was on the Romulan's/Klingon's.

What Nero did was like 9/11 no one expected anything like that to happen. Nero's ship was so technologically advanced it was beyond TNG/DS9's tech. And I"m not saying it does not have a defensive fleet, but its not this massive thing that just goes around the solar system. It is on the boarders of the Federation more focused towards the Romulan and Klingon empires. But their end goal was always to have a diplomatic solution to it all, and create peace. They did with the Klingon's and had a "stand down" with the Romulans and finally an alliance during DS9 with the Dominion War.

I am bummed that Shatner isn't gonna have a cameo in this while Nimoy did it without a problem and really Old Spock was a nice fresh bonus to the movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roach

Shatner wanted a bigger role

With Nimoy it made sense, because Spock's time travel was part of the whole plot. With Shatner...unless you Time Travel aspect again with an old Kirk I don't know what he would really play. Would Shatner have played a different character? Or would he only have wanted to be Kirk?

Well that was two different things. The fact is many more hounded the TDKR sets, and a lot of the sets were outdoors so stuff leaked, like Talia ect.

With Star Trek most of it they do on sets, so easier to keep set photos to a minimum. I mean I think the only spy pics we got was of Spock and Benedict's character fighting.

True, but given that some talked of it going back to BB, I felt they showed it's connection to the goals of Ra's and Bruce's want of being a symbol for Gotham.

With this, it's like you can't infer much.

Another thing that I liked about the first film was how they essentially revealed the relationship between Spock and Uhura in the scene where she complains about the Farragut. The first time I saw the film, I didn't pay much attention to her tone. So, now it always makes me laugh.

It did get thinking of how this sequel seems it'll another film in which the villain's connected to the hero on some personal level due to some direct or indirect consequence. Just interesting they went that route again.